Philosophy... What do You Think?

Avatar image for thedandyman
TheDandyMan

5175

Forum Posts

2213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

Philosophy's definitely fun to think about but science should be the main thing we use to determine whether or not something exists imo. That's not to say I don't enjoy the subject, and I might even prefer it to science, but it shouldn't be the first thing we come to when trying to discover facts about how reality operates.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Frameworks for Science are Necessarily Philosophical in Nature

Teleology or Materialism?

The evolution of living things is understood quite readily in a teleological framework

Francis Bacon abandoned teleology in the 17th century in favour of a mechanical understanding of nature. The tautology (survival of survivors) of Darwinism is the direct consequence of the abandonment of teleology in natural science.

If our metaphysical framework is materialistic, the destination of our inquiries will always be materialistic -- we can do no other.

If our metaphysical framework is teleological, the destination of our inquiries will always be teleological -- we can do no other.

To do science in only one philosophical framework while ignoring the other (or fighting the other) is certainly not conducive to progress in the collective knowledge of humanity. And its a bit dumb too.

Avatar image for magnablue
magnablue

10500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

boring

Avatar image for thedandyman
TheDandyMan

5175

Forum Posts

2213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

#155  Edited By TheDandyMan
Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@thedandyman said:

Philosophy's definitely fun to think about but science should be the main thing we use to determine whether or not something exists imo. That's not to say I don't enjoy the subject, and I might even prefer it to science, but it shouldn't be the first thing we come to when trying to discover facts about how reality operates.

Philosophy and science are really the same thing. Both attempt to draw conclusions from empirical evidence. The difference, I think, that people are most commonly referring to when distinguishing between the two is crafting a theory that is consistent with the information (and unprovable Godel truths...) that are already available (thought experiments, logic; mathematics), vs. searching for new information to verify/falsify/prompt change in a theory (empirical experiments). The former is overwhelmingly the form that philosophy as distinguished from science takes, because it deals with the abstract relations that are perceptible to humans far more than fundamental (or rather, as close to fundamental as we can reduce given the inevitable incompleteness of cognition...again, Godel) physical relations, which must be sought out and which are the domain of science. The search is philosophy's, science's response to a lack of data from which to derive a truth with reason.

Our abilities to relate both physical and abstract truths far outstrip our abilities to explain the abstractions with the physical, or reduce the abstractions to the physical, meaning progressions in answering physical and abstract questions have had to be separate to some degree. Both are inquiries as to the nature of reality, from two different angles.

Avatar image for thedandyman
TheDandyMan

5175

Forum Posts

2213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

#157  Edited By TheDandyMan

@darthmummy: I generally agree with most of the things you've said. For sure, philosophy can help to learn the truth about the nature of the universe but science is more useful because it uses evidence as well as rationality. Philosophy can make a hypothesis about what could be possible whereas science can show what is possible but in the absence of evidence, philosophy can be all we have to go on (which is basically what you said at the end of your first paragraph).

I don't think morality could just be based upon science so this is were philosophy can be really helpful.

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@darthmummy: I generally agree with most of the things you've said. For sure, philosophy can help to learn the truth about the nature of the universe but science is more useful because it uses evidence as well as rationality. Philosophy can make a hypothesis about what could be possible whereas science can show what is possible but in the absence of evidence, philosophy can be all we have to go on (which is basically what you said at the end of your first paragraph).

I don't think morality could just be based upon science so this is were philosophy can be really helpful.

Evidence prompts philosophy as well as science. Rationality is the process of deriving truth from truth (evidence). Both philosophy and science make hypotheses about what could be, but in science some portion of the evidence that confirms that the hypothesis is true or false is more often unavailable, which prompts "the search." I'm pretty sure the most important distinction remains pre vs. post-abstraction of the evidence.

Morality/ethics is really weird. It's the only part of philosophy and science that attempts to prescribe as well as describe. I feel as though it should be treated as a third entity, if we're to separate philosophy and science.

Avatar image for thedandyman
TheDandyMan

5175

Forum Posts

2213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

@darthmummy: To help make this clearer, what is your definition of philosophy? The first thing I get come up is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline", would you say that's in line with your view?

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: If you mean philosophy, as in logic, then the answer is "It is king of all". It explains things where mathematics cannot. This is due to mathematics and numbers not actually "existing", they are simply concepts created by man.

But logic is essentially the blueprint, the "map key" to understanding the universe. Not everything that occurs is logical, but everything can be explained, by logic, if approached from the right perspective.

. We can explain things without needing philosophy. In fact through science we have discovered explanations and understandings for many things.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@darthmummy: said...

..."I'm pretty sure the most important distinction remains pre vs. post-abstraction of the evidence."

Would you be so kind as to give us an example or two of this?

Thanks

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@darthmummy: To help make this clearer, what is your definition of philosophy? The first thing I get come up is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline", would you say that's in line with your view?

Pretty much. And the scope of this definition seems to include science as a way to deduce the fundamental (or rather, as close to...) nature of reality through phenomena. It's not by accident that science was once called "natural philosophy."

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@darthmummy: said...

..."I'm pretty sure the most important distinction remains pre vs. post-abstraction of the evidence."

Would you be so kind as to give us an example or two of this?

Thanks

What I was getting at here was that science is concerned with explaining phenomena ("Why does cinnamon have that smell?") with more phenomena, while philosophy tries to integrate all the underlying patterns (abstract from the abstractions) of at least one aspect of being ("What is the nature of consciousness?") and make a map of it that follows its own internal logic. I was entertaining the idea of science and philosophy as two separate entities, but I think the distinction is unnecessary, as even here you see their domains blending together; science often theorizes holistically just as philosophy often deals with minutiae.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#165  Edited By deema78

@mrdecepticonleader: No, no. You are misunderstanding. What science "is" is knowledge. Knowledge is gleaned by the use of logic and rational thought. Even mathematics, itself, is the result of logic. EVERYTHING is the result of logic, period.. (until you get to quantum reality where logic does not exist in the same "form")

Perhaps you are unaware that logic and philosophy are are essentially synonyms?

Avatar image for thedandyman
TheDandyMan

5175

Forum Posts

2213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

@darthmummy: So are we saying that science is effectively a type of philosophy which involves looking data on the nature of the universe rather than, and this is put slightly crudely, simply thinking about the nature of the universe? The ontological argument is a philosophical one and involves trying to prove god via supposedly logical steps of reflection but a scientific argument for god would involve having proof in the form of detectable proof, is that the difference between philosophy and science?

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: No, no. You are misunderstanding. What science "is" is knowledge. Knowledge is gleaned by the use of logic and rational thought. Even mathematics, itself, is the result of logic. EVERYTHING is the result of logic, period.. (until you get to quantum reality where logic does not exist in the same "form")

Perhaps you are unaware that logic and philosophy are are essentially synonyms?

No My point was that through science we have come to know answers to many questions posed by philosophy.

Avatar image for sc
SC

18222

Forum Posts

182748

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#168 SC  Moderator

@pooty said:

@SC: @mrdecepticonleader: What actions or in-actions would make one believe that we don't have free will? Lets assume we just have "will". What would be different if we had "free will"? basically, how can you tell the difference between "will" and "free will"?

So there are lots of way we can define will, as in a persons will, I had the will to reply to your comment in the future, preferably the distant future. I had a desire, an intent, and made a deliberate intent to hold off posting a reply for a while, whilst also having an intent, desire and wish to eventually post a reply, like what I am doing right now.

Why today? I don't really know, I mean, I can guess and draw some conclusions, like the thread was bumped, so it reminded me, but this thread has been bumped before and I even once told another user about the thread to avoid a duplicate being made. That and I was worried about forgetting, but I can't really figure out with any sort of certainty why today, in particular?

Okay so almost three years later and I am posting this, on November 8th, my wish is being fulfilled, my will is being fulfilled. So between the time you asked your questions, and my reply right now, could I have chosen to have replied at any time during all that? I felt like I did… last week I could have no? Last year? Then again, I didn't did I? Hypothetically if something knew a certain amount about me, and reality, could they predict with greater than average odds that I would reply to you on this day? Not any other day before or after this day? Would my sense of being able to reply on any other day, have been an illusion? I mean 3 years is a long time, what if I was in an accident and was never able to have posted a reply at all? Or if it was "certain" that I was going to post on the 8th of November, does that mean for the last three years I didn't have to worry about (my own) death because I couldn't have died. I mean, I feel… like I made a choice to post this reply today, but I don't really know if I can prove I did, maybe I didn't, maybe a combination of variables too great and various, subtle and hidden, have directed me into this position, situation and positions and situations after. Since the combination of all those variables is too great and various, subtle and hidden, not sure if I could provide falsifiable evidence either. Then again some of those variables may also allow for something that could be comparable to free will, again definition/understanding dependent.

Sorry for late reply. Hope you are well!

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#169  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@thedandyman said:

@darthmummy: So are we saying that science is effectively a type of philosophy which involves looking data on the nature of the universe rather than, and this is put slightly crudely, simply thinking about the nature of the universe? The ontological argument is a philosophical one and involves trying to prove god via supposedly logical steps of reflection but a scientific argument for god would involve having proof in the form of detectable proof, is that the difference between philosophy and science?

Science deals with aspects of the nature of the universe that are not accessible to our usual perception, so it does have to use special methods to get data that it can use to think about them. And the thinking can indeed result in detectable proofs in the form of hypotheses made about other aspects that are later confirmed. This is pretty much the scientific process, and I guess as good a basis as any for isolating science from the rest of philosophy.

However, to say that science by this distinction is more useful than the rest of philosophy is, I think, false, because it presumes that there is nothing to be gained through reason, that we have exhaustively explored the possible implications of all the evidence we already have, which is not the case.

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#170  Edited By deema78

@mrdecepticonleader: Okay, well, either way, you are misunderstanding it. You have cause and effect backwards

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Okay, well, either way, you are misunderstanding it. You have cause and effect backwards

What is it I am misunderstanding exactly?

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#172  Edited By deema78

@mrdecepticonleader: That "through science we have learned" actually means, with logic and philosophy guiding us, we have learned "x" about science... This is not a debatable subject. This is the reality.. Saying 'science' has taught us is essentially an oxymoron...

Science isnt the teacher, science is the result of rational thought/philosophy/logic... Science is the facts and data.. "Philosophy" is the imagination/insight/higher conceptual thoughts that allowed for the questions about science to first be posed.... You cannot gain knowledge without actually gaining that knowledge. And you only gain that knowledge through logic and rational thought

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: That "through science we have learned" actually means, with logic and philosophy guiding us, we have learned "x" about science... This is not a debatable subject. This is the reality.. Saying 'science' has taught us is essentially an oxymoron...

Science isnt the teacher, science is the result of rational thought/philosophy/logic... Science is the facts and data.. "Philosophy" is the imagination/insight/higher conceptual thoughts that allowed for the questions about science to first be posed.... You cannot gain knowledge without actually gaining that knowledge. And you only gain that knowledge through logic and rational thought

Science is the thing we use to find out about how things work in the universe that is my point. We don't use philosophy as a tool for understanding the universe, biologists or rocket scientists don't use philosophy to make new discoveries or invent space shuttles. I never disregarded philosophy in regards to first asking those big questions my point is that philosophy as an actual method for discovering answerers to things is not effective.

Avatar image for neonpheonix
NeonPheonix

798

Forum Posts

89

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

I love philosophy and intelligent debating. But I read somewhere a long time ago that summed up my view wholly,"Philosohy: Questions that will never be answered. Religion: Answers that must never be questioned."

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#175  Edited By deema78

@mrdecepticonleader:

No, you are flat wrong, once again... Science is the RESULT, not the process

Jesus, man, do not debate me without looking up definitions. My statement is 100% accurate. I am a double engineer, literal genius, logic / philosophy /rational thoughts are my specialty and greatest strengths. I am not trying to have a debate with someone that is approaching me with conjecture vs my facts

The 'scientific process", that which is used to experiment and gain the knowledge, HOW DOES THAT OCCUR? WHAT IS BEING USED IN ORDER TO COME TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS? LOGIC....

EVERYTHING, EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT AND PARTICLE IN OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS WHAT IT IS, DOES WHAT IT DOES, BECAUSE OF LOGIC... "A" to "B" to "C"... .. i think maybe you are having difficulty with the concept of logic/philosophy.. That is where it seems to break down, for you. The reason that scientists are able to essentially reverse time so that we are aware of the complete makeup of the universe, micro seconds after the big bang, is because of logic leading back to that point.... Logic is the guide that everything must and does follow, or the universe would mimic the quantum realm. where nothing would seemingly fit or have any boundaries or guidelines that made sense to us who are so used to logic.. The fundamental rules of the universe, all of Einstein's theories, are the outcome of logic and philosophy...

I think you think of philosophy as people pondering big concepts and yadda yadda.. But relativity is a big concept.. What, if not logic, would it be? COULD it be? The answer is nothing.. Cause the process is by definition logic.. definitions exist for the reason of explaining things. This, itself, is logic. If no definitions existed, how would anyone understand something that requires understanding of smaller elements, within it, that combined make up the bigger picture? It may be better for you to simply say logic, instead of philosophy. Cause I think you are creating your own definition for it based on what you think it is, which it isnt'

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176  Edited By deema78

@mrdecepticonleader: Every scientific discovery/theory/law must be logical, right? If not, it is illogical.. That is, literally, the only thing that is required for "you" to grasp in order to "get" my point... Every step has to be logical ... If the steps that make up the entirety of the process have a base level that dictates it must be such and such, then it is specifically and only due to those laws it is following that it can get to the end... All philosophy is is the observation of interactions and results of that, that lead people to see deeper into it, due to their understanding gleaned... Tried, mane, dunno what else to say.. It is difficult to explain something that just is cause it is that way.. I suppose read a book or hefty article on logic and processes and steps and binary.. They are all essentially the same thing...

Ahhh.,.. hahahh.. but, okay, your claim that science has furthered philosophy is both true and false, because of the way you are thinking about it.. That is true but only because philosophy/logic initially constructed the entirety of that scientific base... So it is really just that it is all a part of the same chain, you are just not following it back far enough to where it actually begins

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78: I keep being unable to post replies because you keep editing them. Plus it is annoying having already typed a response then having to change it in accordance to said post.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

No, you are flat wrong, once again... Science is the RESULT, not the process

Jesus, man, do not debate me without looking up definitions. My statement is 100% accurate. I am a double engineer, literal genius, logic / philosophy /rational thoughts are my specialty and greatest strengths. I am not trying to have a debate with someone that is approaching me with conjecture vs my facts

The 'scientific process", that which is used to experiment and gain the knowledge, HOW DOES THAT OCCUR? WHAT IS BEING USED IN ORDER TO COME TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS? LOGIC....

EVERYTHING, EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT AND PARTICLE IN OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS WHAT IT IS, DOES WHAT IT DOES, BECAUSE OF LOGIC... "A" to "B" to "C"... .. i think maybe you are having difficulty with the concept of logic/philosophy.. That is where it seems to break down, for you. The reason that scientists are able to essentially reverse time so that we are aware of the complete makeup of the universe, micro seconds after the big bang, is because of logic leading back to that point.... Logic is the guide that everything must and does follow, or the universe would mimic the quantum realm. where nothing would seemingly fit or have any boundaries or guidelines that made sense to us who are so used to logic.. The fundamental rules of the universe, all of Einstein's theories, are the outcome of logic and philosophy...

I think you think of philosophy as people pondering big concepts and yadda yadda.. But relativity is a big concept.. What, if not logic, would it be? COULD it be? The answer is nothing.. Cause the process is by definition logic.. definitions exist for the reason of explaining things. This, itself, is logic. If no definitions existed, how would anyone understand something that requires understanding of smaller elements, within it, that combined make up the bigger picture? It may be better for you to simply say logic, instead of philosophy. Cause I think you are creating your own definition for it based on what you think it is, which it isnt'

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Every scientific discovery/theory/law must be logical, right? If not, it is illogical.. That is, literally, the only thing that is required for "you" to grasp in order to "get" my point... Every step has to be logical ... If the steps that make up the entirety of the process have a base level that dictates it must be such and such, then it is specifically and only due to those laws it is following that it can get to the end... All philosophy is is the observation of interactions and results of that, that lead people to see deeper into it, due to their understanding gleaned... Tried, mane, dunno what else to say.. It is difficult to explain something that just is cause it is that way.. I suppose read a book or hefty article on logic and processes and steps and binary.. They are all essentially the same thing...

Ahhh.,.. hahahh.. but, okay, your claim that science has furthered philosophy is both true and false, because of the way you are thinking about it.. That is true but only because philosophy/logic initially constructed the entirety of that scientific base... So it is really just that it is all a part of the same chain, you are just not following it back far enough to where it actually begins

I was talking about in regards to now, today, in regards to science vs philosophy as means of discovering knowledge and how things work, thought I made that clear in post 173, ah well I am here again. I think we got our wires crossed in regards to what we were talking about. It can be hard sometimes with communicating through just text.

I admit I am not some "super genius" like you lol. But just another human being who thinks for themselves and bases their views around reason and evidence, try to anyway since like everyone else I am only human.

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrdecepticonleader: And? That is funny cause it aligns with the discussion.. I am not concerned with your post, in any way, that would make me hold off on GIVING the information rather than waiting for you to give me the wrong information... Cause and effect seem to be an issue, with you.. Your complaint was just about the most illogical one you could have made...

I also think i was initially too harsh.. I just realized that most folks think of philosophy of the act of the thinking and such, that it exists only when the person does so.. Not the case.. Logic is simply the basis for everything. Chaos became order over billions of years, due to nothing but logic.. Nothing but logic... Law of probabilities is simply logic showinng the likelihoods of occurrences.. So, regardless of the idea gleaned by a person, the concept of that idea , the actuality of what that idea is, has always been there.. Einstein didnt "create" e=mc2, he just found it came across it, due to rational thought, the things he already knew, and putting the pieces all together...

To be honest, I have always disliked that logic and philosophy were interchangeable, due to this exact reason.. "Logic" "feels" like a fundamental aspect of the universe.. "Philosophy' "feels" like an old guy's imaginings.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: And? That is funny cause it aligns with the discussion.. I am not concerned with your post, in any way, that would make me hold off on GIVING the information rather than waiting for you to give me the wrong information... Cause and effect seem to be an issue, with you.. Your complaint was just about the most illogical one you could have made...

I also think i was initially too harsh.. I just realized that most folks think of philosophy of the act of the thinking and such, that it exists only when the person does so.. Not the case.. Logic is simply the basis for everything. Chaos became order over billions of years, due to nothing but logic.. Nothing but logic... Law of probabilities is simply logic showinng the likelihoods of occurrences.. So, regardless of the idea gleaned by a person, the concept of that idea , the actuality of what that idea is, has always been there.. Einstein didnt "create" e=mc2, he just found it came across it, due to rational thought, the things he already knew, and putting the pieces all together...

To be honest, I have always disliked that logic and philosophy were interchangeable, due to this exact reason.. "Logic" "feels" like a fundamental aspect of the universe.. "Philosophy' "feels" like an old guy's imaginings.

I have not given any wrong information.

Proving things through the scientific method is how we find out weather something is true. Science has superseded philosophy

Logic is just one part of philosophy.

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#181  Edited By deema78

Also, and this is likely why I get so "heated' in situations, like this,- so, I am also the developer of the #1 rated desktop interface software, on the planet, on the largest strictly freeware site on the net, freewarefiles dot com, for three years straight.. And this is only because my mastery of this subject is historically significant, not just "currently world class"...

The things that you are suggesting I am wrong about are the very thngs that give me insight where none else have it. So, for some dood, across the net, to be literally 100% wrong at every step of his argument, to keep comin back with illogical assertions that claim logic is not THE rule in the universe, when it is THE rule, in the unvierse.. THE most dominant, period, end of .. .there isnt even another anything other than the infinity of quantum probabilities that can approach its "number" in measurement of weight, or muscle flexed upon the universe.. It is everything.. While there are tiers and layers of existence above and below it,, it alone rules at this plane, where we exist.... comma, it gets under my skin.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

Also, and this is likely why I get so "heated' in situations, like this,- so, I am also the developer of the #1 rated desktop interface software, on the planet, on the largest strictly freeware site on the net, freewarefiles dot com, for three years straight.. And this is only because my mastery of this subject is historically significant, not just "currently world class"...

The things that you are suggesting I am wrong about are the very thngs that give me insight where none else have it. So, for some dood, across the net, to be literally 100% wrong at every step of his argument, to keep comin back with illogical assertions that claim logic is not THE rule in the universe, when it is THE rule, in the unvierse.. THE most dominant, period, end of .. .there isnt even another anything other than the infinity of quantum probabilities that can approach its "number" in measurement of weight, or muscle flexed upon the universe.. It is everything.. While there are tiers and layers of existence above and below it,, it alone rules at this plane, where we exist

For someone supposedly so intelligent you sure have missed what I have said. But whatever I am just some dude on the internet. Heh

So you are saying no one else could possibly understand what you understand? That seems to say the least big headed.

I don't tend to do this, but since what I am trying somehow is going over your head I'll just paraphrase

Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” . “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

Stephen Hawking.

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#183  Edited By deema78

@mrdecepticonleader: That wasn't meant to BE insulting. Was meant to show you were BEING insulting, ... I'm also and obvsiously an aspie, so that's cool.... er than not.....

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: That wasn't meant to BE insulting. Was meant to show you were BEING insulting, ... I'm also and obvsiously an aspie, so that's cool.... er than not.....

Well you were being condescending. Maybe to you,you weren't but you were on my end. But I wasn't being insulting. If you feel I was well hey I can't help that just responding to what you said. Where did I insult you?

Well that really isn't obvious at all, nothing is when all we have to read is simple text we type. Trust me.

Avatar image for deema78
deema78

20

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#185  Edited By deema78

@mrdecepticonleader:

So, look, this is very easy to prove.. Let us measure... Let us just take one "moment"/instant/second and figuratively freeze time and all in it...

How many things will there be, in this entire universe, at any moment, that are illogical? It is a pretty big unvierse, right? Must be countless. Except the answer actually is that NOTHING, NOT ONE THING in that entire universe is "illogical"..

You may say "no, cause I have seen people doing things that were completely illogical".. Well, no, you haven't. It was that person's lack of understanding for whatever the situation, that LED to them making what appears to be an illogical decision. THAT is the very definition of logic... EVERYTHING, all the way down to the singularity is always and only ever logic.. If it were not, it would all be chaos.

So this means that every particle in the universe, every everything isn't just "not illogical", it is the RESULT of logic. Logic DICTATES it be. This is a very different thing and what MAKES logic the boss of this universe.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@deema78 said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

So, look, this is very easy to prove.. Let us measure... Let us just take one "moment"/instant/second and figuratively freeze time and all in it...

How many things will there be, in this entire universe, at any moment, that are illogical? It is a pretty big unvierse, right? Must be countless. Except the answer actually is that NOTHING, NOT ONE THING in that entire universe is "illogical"..

You may say "no, cause I have seen people doing things that were completely illogical".. Well, no, you haven't. It was that person's lack of understanding for whatever the situation, that LED to them making what appears to be an illogical decision. THAT is the very definition of logic... EVERYTHING, all the way down to the singularity is always and only ever logic.. If it were not, it would all be chaos.

So this means that every particle in the universe, every everything isn't just "not illogical", it is the RESULT of logic. Logic DICTATES it be. This is a very different thing and what MAKES logic the boss of this universe.

Well doesn't it depend on what you are defining as logic? I mean for example there are two houses on fire one has 5 to 10 people trapped in it, in that house there are scientists who have discovered the cure for cancers or world hunger something like that and in the other there are family members loved ones and there is only enough water in the fire hose and enough time to put one house out. Now how do you apply logic to that situation, where does it ft in to that situation? Can anyone really say it would be illogical to choose family over scientists? Where does logic come in on situations like that?

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Surely emotion rules us more than logic does. I mean is it logic that makes us want to know more about the universe or our desire to find out more? Our own personal and emotional desires, our survival needs and instincts, our emotional and personal attachments, our wants and needs drive us. Not saying logic doesn't have a place far from it. Not sure if agree it dictated everything though.....

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#188  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@mrdecepticonleader: These instances of the illogical behaviour of humans that you have described are abstractions from the underlying logic of an orderly universe. We are always talking about abstractions when we talk about non-reduced human behaviour. Abstractions don't have to make sense, but they don't give us an accurate picture of how the universe really works either.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@darthmummy said:

@mrdecepticonleader: These instances of the illogical behaviour of humans that you have described are abstractions from the underlying logic of an orderly universe. We are always talking about abstractions when we talk about non-reduced human behaviour. Abstractions don't have to make sense, but they don't give us an accurate picture of how the universe really works either.

I haven't really described any instances of illogical behaviour. I gave an example of a situation questioning how logic would fit into that situation. Again would anyone look at such a situation with logic in mind? I also mentioned how our emotions play a big part in us. Not disregarding logic at all. Our ability to be able to reason and question things is great, love it. Guess that's what we are doing now.Questioning and coming to reasonable conclusions using evidence and understanding isn't done enough.

Abstractions sorry I am not quite sure what you mean when you say abstractions? Do you mean the example I gave above is an abstraction or something else?

Avatar image for khael
Khael

15331

Forum Posts

567

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

What's philosophy?

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#191  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@mrdecepticonleader: deema78 said that logic dictates everything. You said that it doesn't, because people aren't always motivated by the logic of their own reasoning. This is false because any kind of motivation or reasoning is the derivative of (abstracted from, though I should probably say derived instead), again, the underlying logic of an orderly universe. Ethical decisions like the one faced by the fireman are similarly reducible.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@mrdecepticonleader: deema78 said that logic dictates everything. You said that it doesn't, because people aren't always motivated by the logic of their own reasoning. This is false because any kind of motivation or reasoning is the derivative of (abstracted from, though I should probably say derived instead), again, the underlying logic of an orderly universe. Ethical decisions like the one faced by the fireman are similarly reducible.

Well I didn't actually say logic doesn't dictate everything I am just asking why it does. So emotions are part of logic? Maybe I am thinking too hard about this.,...

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#193  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@mrdecepticonleader: Right here:

Surely emotion rules us more than logic does. I mean is it logic that makes us want to know more about the universe or our desire to find out more? Our own personal and emotional desires, our survival needs and instincts, our emotional and personal attachments, our wants and needs drive us. Not saying logic doesn't have a place far from it. Not sure if agree it dictated everything though.....

You're painting drives like emotion as some sort of alternative to the underlying logic of the physical systems they're derived from (unless you were talking about the "logic" of morality, in which case you have shifted the conversation to something completely different without telling anyone). It's not. Emotions are "part" of physical logic in that they are derived from it.

Avatar image for dngn4774
dngn4774

5600

Forum Posts

41

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 22

#194  Edited By dngn4774

@mrdecepticonleader said:
@darthmummy said:

@mrdecepticonleader: deema78 said that logic dictates everything. You said that it doesn't, because people aren't always motivated by the logic of their own reasoning. This is false because any kind of motivation or reasoning is the derivative of (abstracted from, though I should probably say derived instead), again, the underlying logic of an orderly universe. Ethical decisions like the one faced by the fireman are similarly reducible.

Well I didn't actually say logic doesn't dictate everything I am just asking why it does. So emotions are part of logic? Maybe I am thinking too hard about this.,...

So are you saying that all emotional decisions are logical once we contemplate the value said emotions have over our identities and behaviors?

@neonpheonix said:

I love philosophy and intelligent debating. But I read somewhere a long time ago that summed up my view wholly,"Philosohy: Questions that will never be answered. Religion: Answers that must never be questioned."

Pretty much.

Belief + Logic = Philosophy

Belief + Faith = Religion

Logic allows all participants to evaluate the truth for themselves, faith requires all participants to accept the belief on surface value.

I sincerely believe that faith denies people one of the greatest parts of the human experience (questioning) but all individuals must have faith because we don't have the time and resources to investigate every supposed truth.

Example, I believe that an American landed on the moon but I don't have the time to fully examine the recording, verify Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's birth certificates, or invest in the resources to travel to the moon to look for an American flag.

Edit: To my knowledge the moon landing is not a religion, I was just using it as an example to describe the convenience of having faith.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@mrdecepticonleader: Right here:

Surely emotion rules us more than logic does. I mean is it logic that makes us want to know more about the universe or our desire to find out more? Our own personal and emotional desires, our survival needs and instincts, our emotional and personal attachments, our wants and needs drive us. Not saying logic doesn't have a place far from it. Not sure if agree it dictated everything though.....

You're painting drives like emotion as some sort of alternative to the underlying logic of the physical systems they're derived from (unless you were talking about the "logic" of morality, in which case you have shifted the conversation to something completely different without telling anyone). It's not. Emotions are "part" of physical logic in that they are derived from it.

Well I was talking about morality in part of my example. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#196  Edited By VoloErgoMalus

@mrdecepticonleader: The logic of morality is unpredictable because morality is a construct, and constructs don't have to make sense. But just because we can imagine systems that don't make sense doesn't mean that rules and logic don't dictate everything in the universe on a physical level (whatever it means for there to be rules...). That's what I was trying to say in the original post.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19693

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@dngn4774 said:
@mrdecepticonleader said:
@darthmummy said:

@mrdecepticonleader: deema78 said that logic dictates everything. You said that it doesn't, because people aren't always motivated by the logic of their own reasoning. This is false because any kind of motivation or reasoning is the derivative of (abstracted from, though I should probably say derived instead), again, the underlying logic of an orderly universe. Ethical decisions like the one faced by the fireman are similarly reducible.

Well I didn't actually say logic doesn't dictate everything I am just asking why it does. So emotions are part of logic? Maybe I am thinking too hard about this.,...

So are you saying that all emotional decisions are logical once we contemplate the value said emotions have over our identities and behaviors?

@neonpheonix said:

I love philosophy and intelligent debating. But I read somewhere a long time ago that summed up my view wholly,"Philosohy: Questions that will never be answered. Religion: Answers that must never be questioned."

Pretty much.

Belief + Logic = Philosophy

Belief + Faith = Religion

Logic allows all participants to evaluate the truth for themselves, faith requires all participants to accept the belief on surface value.

I sincerely believe that faith denies people one of the greatest parts of the human experience (questioning) but all individuals must have faith because we don't have the time and resources to investigate every supposed truth.

Example, I believe that an American landed on the moon but I don't have the time to fully examine the recording, verify Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's birth certificates, or invest in the resources to travel to the moon to look for an American flag.

Edit: To my knowledge the moon landing is not a religion, I was just using it as an example to describe the convenience of having faith.

I suppose so. My point was that we don't think in terms of logic and reason when it comes to our bonds with loved ones or it is not like we would approach a certain situation thinking about logic and reason.

@mrdecepticonleader: The logic of morality is unpredictable because morality is a construct, and constructs don't have to make sense. But just because we can imagine systems that don't make sense doesn't mean that logic doesn't dictate everything in the universe on a physical level. That's what I was trying to say in the original post.

talking about morality is another big topic to get into. So Okay I see.

Avatar image for the_shogun
The_Shogun

4803

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all:

Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination.

Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression.

You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators.

There are no caveats you can make.

Do intelligent species have a moral value? Yes. But do different species have different moral values? For example, is every intelligent species a 1, or are there some 2s and even some 3s, with the higher value species being worth more intrinsically? I don't believe they do. So I decide based on the evolutionary bias of kin selection; an organic species is closer to me (an organic) than an inorganic. Additionally the inorganic species has acted against their creators, who provided them with existence. Another evolutionary crime as it acts against the principle of reciprocal altruism. The game theory of species survival reveals that the inorganic species is the greater threat. I choose organic life, in this particular scenario.

Avatar image for voloergomalus
VoloErgoMalus

2881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Bump...?

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22310

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#200  Edited By willpayton

Gonna bump this, @mrdecepticonleader

I've been watching this series of videos lately on philosophy, which are really well done. Go check them out:

Loading Video...

They're up to 14 videos now and discussing different arguments for and against God, and stuff like that.